Originally Posted by DigitalShariah

Pretty sure he's doing a lot better than Hitchins.

I'd say both are doing roughly the same....what with both being dead and all.

Originally Posted by Al Gebra

Fair enough.

but....

Do you ever question the whole thing? Transubstantiation is a central pillar of the RC faith so it deserves some scrutiny.
I can see potential justifications for accepting things like transubstantiation on the basis that they are essentially anachronistic and symbolic but have ritualistic importance and relevance.
But to actually believe that the bread/wafer turns into the flesh of Jesus in a substantive and real way is another thing altogether and seems to appeal to a different framework of justification that is essentially at odds with what we know of nature.
Nature may have an underlying randomness and probabilistic character but there are consistencies in what we know and transubstantiation is one that we can measure on that more consistent sphere of justification. That's what I think anyway.

In brief, isn't it simply more likely that it's still a wafer?

Where is heaven gone? It used to be just up there in the sky, a bit above the moon. Clearly believers have put it somewhere else in the meantime.

I understand what you are saying with regard to transubstantiation, but it seems to me that the "different framework of justification that is essentially at odds with what we know of nature" boat has sailed long before you get to it. i.e. belief in transubstantiation does not require any different kind of mental processes than are already in place to cover a host of other issues. It only sticks out because protestantism rejected it, and as such it is marked out as a notable difference. The common ground between them is equally full of incredible things however. It's not like it's all rational except for that wacky transubstantiation stuff.

Originally Posted by Science Ninja

Where is heaven gone? It used to be just up there in the sky, a bit above the moon. Clearly believers have put it somewhere else in the meantime.

I understand what you are saying with regard to transubstantiation, but it seems to me that the "different framework of justification that is essentially at odds with what we know of nature" boat has sailed long before you get to it. i.e. belief in transubstantiation does not require any different kind of mental processes than are already in place to cover a host of other issues. It only sticks out because protestantism rejected it, and as such it is marked out as a notable difference. The common ground between them is equally full of incredible things however. It's not like it's all rational except for that wacky transubstantiation stuff.

I understand what you are saying and agree but there is a reason I picked transubstantiation. Many religious phenomena hide behind a wall of being unknowable. e.g. Heaven is something that happens after you die so it is not immediately accessible to anyone. Miracles are always witnessed by third parties but are never available for test. etc. etc.
With TS (i'm sick of typing that word) there is a claim that something that is readily accessible, a wafer/piece of bread has materially changed after a priest consecrates it.
The point is that you can use the same faculties that you use to assess notions of substance in other things to prove that it is still the same thing.
It's one thing making nebulous claims about what happens after we die and the power of prayer and intercession but something that is so obviously nonsensical is worth holding up (excuse the pun!) as being a clear example of the kind of cognitive dissonance that is at play.

Originally Posted by Al Gebra

I understand what you are saying and agree but there is a reason I picked transubstantiation. Many religious phenomena hide behind a wall of being unknowable. e.g. Heaven is something that happens after you die so it is not immediately accessible to anyone. Miracles are always witnessed by third parties but are never available for test. etc. etc.
With TS (i'm sick of typing that word) there is a claim that something that is readily accessible, a wafer/piece of bread has materially changed after a priest consecrates it.
The point is that you can use the same faculties that you use to assess notions of substance in other things to prove that it is still the same thing.
It's one thing making nebulous claims about what happens after we die and the power of prayer and intercession but something that is so obviously nonsensical is worth holding up (excuse the pun!) as being a clear example of the kind of cognitive dissonance that is at play.

Here's a question - Has there ever been a scientific test of TS. Surely if we got a sample and put it into a Mass Spectrometer we would find out that Jesus is actually made of bread?

Or would that just be spoiling the illusion*?



^{*Now I know why I was never allowed to stay awake in the sitting room all through Christmas night.}

Originally Posted by Munnkeyman

Here's a question - Has there ever been a scientific test of TS. Surely if we got a sample and put it into a Mass Spectrometer we would find out that Jesus is actually made of bread?

Or would that just be spoiling the illusion*?



^{*Now I know why I was never allowed to stay awake in the sitting room all through Christmas night.}

I must say that the Bread Jesus hypothesis never occurred to me and is arguably a shade more plausible than the current explanation.

Originally Posted by Al Gebra

Fair enough.

but....

Do you ever question the whole thing?

No, not at all. I have done in the past and am familiar with the differing theological positions but they are of no interest to me anymore. Believing in transubstantiation requires no more faith than believing in God in the first place. As I said, in some respects I'm a Cafeteria Catholic, e.g., use of contraception, supporting same sex civil marriages, and so on, while accepting the Church's position on these issues, as contradictory as that might at first seem, and in other respects being an utterly, totally dyed in the wool Catholic. To a large extent I am able to compartmentalise my beliefs, so that, for example, I don't mix science with religion, I can separate church and state issues, and can even separate my moral positions from my political positions.

Originally Posted by Roisin3

No, not at all. I have done in the past and am familiar with the differing theological positions but they are of no interest to me anymore. Believing in transubstantiation requires no more faith than believing in God in the first place. As I said, in some respects I'm a Cafeteria Catholic, e.g., use of contraception, supporting same sex civil marriages, and so on, while accepting the Church's position on these issues, as contradictory as that might at first seem, and in other respects being an utterly, totally dyed in the wool Catholic. To a large extent I am able to compartmentalise my beliefs, so that, for example, I don't mix science with religion, I can separate church and state issues, and can even separate my moral positions from my political positions.

You've previously posted the phone numbers etc of abortion clinics on this site. Where is the dye in that wool of yours?

Originally Posted by Roisin3

No, not at all. I have done in the past and am familiar with the differing theological positions but they are of no interest to me anymore. Believing in transubstantiation requires no more faith than believing in God in the first place. As I said, in some respects I'm a Cafeteria Catholic, e.g., use of contraception, supporting same sex civil marriages, and so on, while accepting the Church's position on these issues, as contradictory as that might at first seem, and in other respects being an utterly, totally dyed in the wool Catholic. To a large extent I am able to compartmentalise my beliefs, so that, for example, I don't mix science with religion, I can separate church and state issues, and can even separate my moral positions from my political positions.

It is different in the sense that I outlined above. ie.
Belief in God is a belief in the absence of evidence but belief in transubstantiation is a belief that runs contrary to evidence.

myDUP.com

Chaps: Your country needs you.

I don't. I feel kinda sorry for you lost souls/dogs who fret about stuff that should not concern you as you are not RCs in good standing. Believe transubstantiation or life itself is an illusion or a dream heady or otherwise. There is no reason why those who do believe or who choose to believe should care a whit about your idle musings which are, you will agree, 50+ years after Paisley, your main man.

If you want instruction in the catholic faith, there are services available.

For now, suffice it to say for the umpteenth time, the subject of this thread is more fraudulent than your main man believes transubstantiation to be.

Originally Posted by And So I Said

You've previously posted the phone numbers etc of abortion clinics on this site. Where is the dye in that wool of yours?

You either have me confused with someone else or the doc needs to up your dosage.